Ok, so I’m not going to make values judgments on the merits of the case, but the least the complainants can do is respect the process. Blake Frederick introduced himself as “Incoming AMS Presient” to mixed light table banging and uncomfortable ‘oooh’s. Our appeals process exists in Code and Bylaws, things that the President is allegedly supposed to respect and protect.

For the moment, Blake is disqualified. If you don’t like the process, work to change it, but misrepresenting it is nothing short of a deliberate muddying of the waters. At the moment, Alex Monegro is the President-Elect, pending completing of the appeals process. So let’s respect what is going on, and clear up the ambiguities regarding slates and such in the future.

13 Responses to ““blake frederick, AMS al gore” would’ve been funny”

Monegro president elect? you been drinking too much to think straight too often? How can the EA overturn the decision of the majority of students who voted without any evidence but a video of people in the same room?? And Alex will never have been elected even if he steals the position from the students. He will have won by winning the EA’s favor in a bias and unfair way. Still, until the appeals have been judged, we have no president.

“How can the EA overturn the decision of the majority of students who voted without any evidence but a video of people in the same room??”

Because they’re given that authority under AMS Code of Procedure, Section IX A, Article 3(2). Surprisingly, the candidate who was disqualified is also given the right to appeal under the same section, Article 3(10).

The rules are patently clear here, Monegro is currently the President-elect, but that term is almost completely empty prior to the competition of the appeals process and the ratification of elections results (as per the code).

– Alex

—
Article 3(2). For serious offences, the Elections Committee may disqualify a candidate and may also lodge a complaint against the candidate with Student Court with a view to having the
Court suspend the candidate’s Society privileges in accordance with Bylaw 21(1)(d)(ii).

Article 3(10). If the Elections Committee disqualifies a candidate or declares an election or referendum invalid, such disqualification or declaration may be appealed to an Elections Appeal
Committee in accordance with Article 8(7) below.

It seems that if the EC has its way, this will turn into an Al Gore. A President who was chosen by the most people thrown out because of the bias within the system. Instead of Supreme Court Judges chosen by his father, it will be insiders who can’t handle someone who is setting out to accomplish things.

It was stated that what ‘my guy’ was charged for was not against slate rules. Even if he did class announcements and postering with other candidates, he shouldn’t have been disqualified, because it wasn’t against the rules.

I didn’t say anything precisely because I don’t know what Blake did. I wasn’t there, I haven’t seen the evidence, and I’m not in a position to judge. I was just trying to comment on the fact that his supporters seem to throw the word BIAS around every chance they get, without ever (at least apparently) entertaining the thought that maybe he did do wrong.

Now, I get that people trust their man (or woman, as it were). But to an outsider, it certainly seems premature to claim that biases were the reason why Blake was disqualified. The appeals process (and Student Court, I’m sure) will allow everyone to see and hear the evidence.

Parlourpants,

I don’t pretend to know how the EC interpreted the rules. Obviously they did so differently than you, or else we wouldn’t even be having this discussion 🙂 We’ll have to see how this one plays out. I’m looking forward to it.

As the other potential Matt in this conversation, I was speaking about Blake saying that he was the incoming AMS President. I realize that it’s only a small thing, but I think that names, symbols and semantics matter – perhaps even more in this situation, given the infuriatingly stalled nature of the process.

1. SPONTANEOUS RESPONSE:
Still, Monegro is not the ‘president elect’, since he was technically not elected, but benefited from an arbitrary ruling of a single person at worst (i.e., EA), or of a group of students at best (i.e., EC). As Naylor pointed out, the EC simply has the authority to do so, because the code is highly ambiguous, an artifact from a struggle that was happening in the past, and is still going on.

The fact that people can simply make complaints about other candidates that could get them immediately disqualified transforms student politics in a dirty game. In the way it is now, the code needs revision and does not reflect the reality. You can have a friend who is going to run in the elections by the end of the first semester, and you may talk about it as much as you want, and think about platforms together, and have points of agreement and disagreement.

You are not allowed to cast your nomination in public and campaign until the nomination period opens. Then the AMS code expects the candidate to disconnect socially from other candidates, which is an unrealistic expectation that goes against democratic principles of participation and involvement and collaborative group thinking.

2. SOME CONTEXT AND HYPOTHESES:
So, on the one hand you have people who have been council insiders for a while, perceived as left-leaning by the mainstream, and who have worked together on several initiatives throughout the last year (i.e., Blake Frederick, Tristan Markle, and Mike Duncan), and people who had been active in the Commerce Undergraduate Society executive and council, and who ran together for different executive positions in the AMS (i.e, Alex Monegro, Tom Dvorak, Johannes Rebane). They are all doing what they had been doing before in their involvement: Johannes began to expand the Sauder program into the Arts, Dvorak is a finance expert with a pragmatic and active appeal, and Monegro is pro-development but sociable, hopefully malleable to epistemological change.

Mike, Tristan, and Blake share many points in their platforms as well. Mike and Tristan pretty much said the same thing in their debates for the Board of Governors, and brought up the same issues, to the point that Tristan remarked “thank you for stealing my issues” to Mike Duncan at the Gallery. If Tristan and Blake were running on a slate, Blake would have dropped out of the BoG race, which was very unlikely for him to win in the first place, which would have seriously raised Tristan’s chances of getting elected, which was an abominable thought for the administration. The greatest fear possible for the UBC administration and the status quo in these elections were an executive with Blake, Tim, Tristan, Blake, and Ale, because it would have been too left-leaning for their taste. With Tristan on the Board, things would be getting more complex and intense, and the quick and fast “I have to make a single point only and raise my hand in agreement” type of student rep approach at the BoG meetings would cease to be. Back when Darren was at the Board, not a single point went unmentioned. He came up constantly with lists upon lists of issues, and as a result, UBC is implementing the housing strategies that Blake helped to create with Brendan Goodmurphy.

One reasonable hypothesis at this point would assume Bijan was pressured by the administration to run again so that Tristan would not win the seat. If Blake had not run for the Board, Tristan would have much higher chances of winning a seat. If Bijan and Blake did not run, Carne could have been elected alongside Duncan if Tristan did not win, but I don’t think that the UBC administration could take that risk. With Bijan and Crystal, things will move quickly forward and the architects appointed by the university will take a huge chunk of student money, which is something that the Brian Sullivan (BS) thinks is a duty students should perform.